Workmen's advocate., 1887-01-29
ECONOMICAL CONDITION OF ENGLAND AT THE PRES-
 ENT TIME.
BY GEO. C. STIEBELING, NJ. D.

)uulcV DlAJcf, tne WnOle income Ol the English Nation during tue year 1870 amounted to GS0O, ,000,0 Of this sum the twenty-three and three-fourths million population belonging to the working class, re ceiyed t300, 0,000,000, and the seven and one-fourth million population belonging to the non-working class, Capitalists and paupersj 500,000, 000 So, if divided equally among them, each head of the working class would have obtained as indi- vidual income tl?5 on an average, and each head of the non working class Capitalists and paupers), fG9, while each head of the working class had contributed individually to the whole amount f333 on an average.
 One decade later, in the year 1880, according to the statement of Leon Levi, the whole in come of the Eng fish Nation amounted to tI,000,- 900, 1000, of which the twenty-six million population belonging to the working class, received E43G, ,000,- GOO, and the eleven million popu- lation, belonging to the working class Capitalists and paupers), t56+ ,0OO, 900. So, if divided equally among them, each head of the work ing class would have obtained as in- diyidual income flG4 on an average and each head of the non working class Capitalists and paupers), f5l4, while each head of the working class had contributed individually to the whole amount f399 on an average.
 From these statements 1t appears first, that during the decade l610- 1880, the numerical increase was nine per cent for the working class, and tifty-one per cent for the non- working class; second, that the aver age yearly income had grown larger by thirty-three per cent. for the for mer, and diminished by twenty-five per cent. for the latter; and third, that the average contribution of each head of the working class to the whole amount of the national income had risen from f333 to f3Sl, e., that the productivity of labor had augmented by fourteen per cent,
 New, let us draw the inferonccs which may be concluded from the foregoing figures. The increase of the non-working class was by forty two per cent. larger than that of the working class. But as the former is composed of two parts, capitalists and paupers. the question comes up if each of the two subdivisions have increased, or only one. This oues- ton Is answered when we remember the indisputable fact that in all countries where the capitaIistic sys- tenn of great industry prevails, con ccntration or condensation of capi- tai is progressing irresistibly, and that, Tn consequence, the number of capitalists is diminishing steadily, while the remaining ones grow richer and richer. From Mjs tollows Hat in Hie non-~oriing c7oss onlythe $ub- dirisi0n of Ne pauperS caR harc gr0'rA }drger. Thus it is easily un- derstood why in this class the arer- age yearly income of every head has decreased by twenty-five per cent, the pauperS being counted in the reckoning, although they do not re- ceive anything in reality. THeretore Ne arerage year'y income ot erey head of he capitaliStic SuJdirisioa mHsf hare risen and, indeed, consid- erably, because there can be no doubt but that this subdivision has diminished in numbers.
 The average yearly income of every head of the working class, |. c.. te wGges, hare increased Mirty-fhree per ceat. This gain cannot be caused entirely by the enhancement in the productivity of labor which amounts only to fourteen per cent. Consequently, He arerage rate of CT. ptoitmioH or snrPlus-raIpe (prcft ot He bossesl must hare gone d91ca J1 ] NiRe!eeN per eeRt.